...
| Method | URL | Parameters | Description | API level | Notes | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| POST | /ehrs |
| Create a new EHR | W1 | HF: How do subjectId and subjectNamespace manifest themselves in the EHR model/resource? PP: IMO the EHR resource should contain the EHR_STATUS and include the PARTY_PROXY with the id and namespace. HF: We should allow EHR_STATUS and EHR_ACCESS objects so it is not necessary to make additional requests resulting in multiple contributions BL: Good idea. PP: ok for EHR_STATUS, not sure about EHR_ACCESS since we don't know what should be in ACCESS_CONTROL_SETTINGS. HF: We need audit details for the contribution PP: should be related to the EHR_STATUS and EHR_ACCESS since are the versioned classes, not sure how a contribution to create the EHR itself will look like, since contribution is for versioned objects and EHR is not a v.o. HF: What is returned in the response? BL: At the moment only:
HF: What is the purpose of meta and action? Shouldn't we use HTTP headers for these? PP: what is the "action" for? Shouldn't be better to return the resource created? I agree it would be better to reuse the HTTP status codes e.g. 201 Created. HF: Why have we change the URL to /ehrs? The resource is an EHR. BL: Plurals are favoured in REST. To be consistent with /compositions, etc, PP: POST to /ehrs will create an EHR under the collection of all EHRs. We choose plurals to refer at the collection of resources so we could do /ehrs/1 to refer to one resource in the collection. | ||
| PUT | /ehrs/{ehrId} | As above | Create a new EHR with specified ehr_id | W1 | HF: Required when creating an EHR with same ehr_id as in another system PP: if the resource exists, since this is PUT, should this also update it? | ||
| GET | /ehrs/{ehrId} | Get EHR | R1 | HF: Useful to get profile of an EHR. E.g. time created, how many compositions, is there a directory, what was the last contribution etc. PP: should return EHR_STATUS and the root folder of EHR.directory (if it exists). Not sure about "how many compositions" or "the last contribution", that depends on specific use cases. I prefer to let the user decide giving generic info and doing other requests. e.g. GET /ehrs/{ehrid}/compositions/count | |||
| DELETE | /ehrs/{ehrId} | Delete an EHR | ? | TB: this isn't possible (well not by an external REST access - it would be an internal admin operation); all you can do is mark an EHR as inactive, which would be a POST (I think) to /ehr/{ehr_id}/ehr_status/other_details/is_active or similar. But even this operation, if it succeeds, is serious - it makes it look like an EHR is deleted, so it's probably not appropriate via any externally visible REST interface. SI: In some countries the patient/client is owner of the data and it has the right (by the law) to ask for a complete (total) removal of all his data, which is more than just an inactive flag. TB: that's true, but doing the delete would require some documentation and/or special permission. I still doubt very much that this could ever be done through a visible REST interface, unless all the proof parameters were provided, and I think these would be too variable to standardise. DB: I agree with SI, this can be a requirement. The authentication/permission is a completely different issue. You could argue that the same kind documentation or special permission would be needed for creating a new composition. BL: I would leave this out of the REST API for the moment. If this is a requirement somewhere it can be performed by other means (special admin interface to the system or similar). DB: I won't leave this out, delete has a clear use case (i.e. opt-out from clinical research) ES: Seems like delete EHR is needed in some cases, so it should be system configurable, we just need to agree on what HTTP status codes/messages to return for different cases.
| |||
| GET | /ehrs/{ehrId}/ehr_status | Retrieve EHR_STATUS | R1 | PP: remove this call and return the EHR_STATUS resource embedded in the EHR resource, is a very small resource and is a weak entity related to the EHR. | |||
| POST | /ehrs/{ehrId}/ehr_status/{versionUid} |
| Update EHR_STATUS | HF: Can we create using this also? BL: Do we need to - would it not be better to create a default status and access when creating EHR (or use the provided ones in the EHR create call body). HF: If that is our suggested approach then fine, but this needs to be specified. HF: We need audit details for the contribution HF: We should provide precedingVersionUid or something to support optimistic locking BL: Added versionUid. HF: Is version uid the new version UID or preceding version uid? The proposed URL would suggest we are posting to this version, not replacing it. HF: I think preceding version uid should be represented as a HTTP If-Match header rather than in the URL. This keeps urls simple and clean. HF: What is returned in the response? BL: What would you have in response? HF: I would suggest we just need HTTP status and headers Content-Location (version specific URL, although we don't have one) and ETag (new version uid) HF: FHIR uses the HTTP Prefer header to allow the client to specify return minimal or representation. The latter would return the new version of the resource. The server can decide how it responds if it is not specified. PP: to update we should use PUT. IMO it is better to update the status via the EHR, not directly, e.g. by PUT to the EHR with the JSON object for the EHR containing the status. | |||
| PUT | /ehrs/{ehrId}/ehr_status/... | Update an attribute in ehr_status | TB HF: Do we really want to provide this level of updates, it may result in many contributions when multiple attributes need to be updated PP: update through the EHR, not directly. | ||||
| GET | /ehrs/{ehrId}/ehr_access | Retrieve EHR_ACCESS | PP: access is a big unknown, how do we specify the resource structure? | ||||
| POST | /ehrs/{ehrId}/ehr_access/{versionUid} |
| Update EHR_ACCESS | HF: Can we create using this also? HF: We need audit details for the contribution HF: We should provide precedingVersionUid or something to support optimistic locking HF: What is returned in the response? | |||
| PUT | /ehrs/{ehrId}/ehr_acess/... | Update an attribute in ehr_access | TB HF: Do we really want to provide this level of updates, it may result in many contributions when multiple attributes need to be updated |
...
| Method | URL | Parameters | Description | API level | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| GET | /ehrs/{ehrId}/directory | Get folder object | R1 | HF: Do we want to indicate that this is the root directory folder? PP: we might need to add a path attribute PP: we should return the root folder when we return an EHR resource. So we give a reference in ehr.directory the user can use to get the whole folder structure. PP: can we return the whole directory structure from this call? so the user have a reference to each folder and can ask for a specific folder contents using another call. | |
| GET | /ehrs/{ehrId}/directory/{folderId}/... | Get subfolder object | R1 | HF: Do we want to indicate that this is subfolder? PP: we might need to add a path attribute | |
| POST | /ehrs/{ehrId}/directory/{versionUid} | Create or update a folder | W1 | HF: We need audit details for contribution PP: for the returned resource? HF: We should provide precedingVersionUid or something to support optimistic locking PP: shouldn't that be the versionUid? IMO we should tell which versionUid we are updating, and let the server side lock the resource and assign the new version id, and return it in the results. HF: What is returned in the response? PP: the new folder with the new version id assigned by the server side, it might include references to the children folders and to the contained compositions (just the ids, or the uris as hrefs like https://stormpath.com/blog/linking-and-resource-expansion-rest-api-tips/). | |
| DELETE | /ehrs/{ehrId}/directory/{versionUid} | Deletes a folder | SI |
(path should depend on ids not names see page 36 of ...
| Method | URL | Parameters | Description | API level | Notes | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| POST | /compositions /ehrs/{ehrId}/compositions |
| Create a new composition | W1 | HF: If we use the second URL we don't need to specify ehrId as parameter PP: +1 HF: should use the RM term of commit audit description rather than commit comment HF: audit parameters should be group under commit audit parameter HF: What is returned in the response? BL: response is very simple:
PP: use status code 201 Created instead of "action". | ||
| PUT | /ehrs/{ehrId}/compositions/{objectId} | Create a new composition with specified objectId | W1 | HF: Useful when you want to control the object ID PP: what happens if the id exists? does this updates? what happens with versions here? | |||
| GET | /compositions/{compositionId} | Retrieve a composition | R1 | Do we return a VERSION or a COMPOSITION here? HF: I would prefer VERSION BL: I would prefer a different resource returning versions HF: Perhaps that is the difference between /composition/{compositionId} and /ehr{ehrId}/compositions/{compositionId}, or are you suggesting something like /version/{uid}? HF: is compositionId the version UID or object ID? BL: we could have both - one returns exact version specified, the other latest one? HF: Should be able to request version by uid, point in time or at specified contribution? BL: Good idea - can you suggest parameters? HF: We use the idea of versionTime, which may be symbolic such as LATEST_TRUNK_VERSION, contribution uid or timestamp | |||
| GET | /compositions/{compositionId}/version
| Retrieve a VERSION | W1 | BL HF: I would prefer the reverse approach to align with RM HF: is compositionId the version UID or object ID? | |||
| POST | /compositions/{compositionId} /ehrs/{ehrId}/compositions/{compositionId} |
| Update a composition | W1 | HF: is compositionId the version UID or object ID? If version UID then it should be PUT. Having said that, FHIR uses PUT for update using an object ID. BL: I think it should be version uid as it then also gives us optimistic locking HF: We should provide precedingVersionUid or something to support optimistic locking, this could be done using the HTTP If-Match header HF: What is returned in the response? PP: if we use version_uid, the resource might be /versioned_compositions instead of /compositions | ||
| DELETE | /compositions/{compositionId} /ehrs/{ehrId}/compositions/{compositionId} |
| Delete a composition | W1 | HF: is compositionId the version UID or object ID? BL: I think it should be version uid as it then also gives us optimistic locking HF: We should provide precedingVersionUid or something to support optimistic locking |
...
| Method | URL | Parameters | Description | API level | Model | Notes | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| POST | /contributions | Atomically commits a set of changes (composition creates, updates or deletes). | W2 |
| This call might also be under /composition resource. HF: Although the RM doesn't explicitly state this, I think contributions should be related to an EHR. E.g. /ehr/{ehrId}/contributions HF: Where multi-ehr contributions are required, we may consider a transaction mechansim HF: The contribution resource should align more with the RM such as using a cut down representation of the ORIGINAL_VERSION including attributes such as lifecycle_state, preceding_version_id, change_type, data. BL: Even in the current call - where multiple EHRs are concerned contributions should be created for each EHR separately - but the whole operation should still be transactional - so all or nothing. I do agree it would also be nice to have a call with /ehr/{ehrId}/ prefix. Perhaps the name contribution is not right although I hardly imagine somebody would want to POST contributions. HF: /contributions makes sense in the context of /ehr/{ehrId}/contributions. If there remains a stand alone CONTRIBUTION resource then /contribution would still make sense. | ||||||
Implementation levels (suggestion)
...